I predict Obama will lose...
Page 1 of 1 [ 7 posts ]
23 Jul 2007, 8:48 pm
...If nominated.
In the Democratic "YouTube" debate he stated his willingness to meet with the leaders of Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea and held the opposition and the idea as "punishment" as not well thought out. He compared meeting with the leaders of those countries now with JFK, and Reagan meeting with the Soviet leaders.
Just a bit ago:
Quote:
ABC News' Teddy Davis and Lindsey Ellerson Report: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is "age-appropriate," is "the right thing to do."
"I remember Alan Keyes . . . I remember him using this in his campaign against me," Obama said in reference to the conservative firebrand who ran against him for the U.S. Senate in 2004. Sex education for kindergarteners had become an issue in his race against Keyes because of Obama’s work on the issue as chairman of the health committee in the Illinois state Senate.
"'Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergarteners,'" said Obama mimicking Keyes' distinctive style of speech. "Which -- I didn’t know what to tell him (laughter)."
"But it’s the right thing to do," Obama continued, "to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools."
"I remember Alan Keyes . . . I remember him using this in his campaign against me," Obama said in reference to the conservative firebrand who ran against him for the U.S. Senate in 2004. Sex education for kindergarteners had become an issue in his race against Keyes because of Obama’s work on the issue as chairman of the health committee in the Illinois state Senate.
"'Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergarteners,'" said Obama mimicking Keyes' distinctive style of speech. "Which -- I didn’t know what to tell him (laughter)."
"But it’s the right thing to do," Obama continued, "to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools."
(source)
(Complaining: Oh, but it's unfair! He didn't advocate comprehensive blah blah blah..., Romney's a hypocrite, blah, blah, blah) Yes that's true, although I still think he's wrong (also, I don't think Romney's a hypocrite technically). It doesn't matter. This shows a lack of political skills. Now, don't get me wrong. You can still win the Democratic nomination this way. Don't peg me as thinking 2008 going to be a values election either. But Obama is failing to understand (like Michael Dukakis) that saying far-left things (and this qualifies as "far-left") can come back to haunt you.
Bill Clinton was far smarter then this, and I think Hillary Clinton somewhat smarter too.
ADDENDUM: Politically smart I mean. I have no problem with Obama being true to his principles even if I disagree with them. I also don't have a problem with politicians running for office being somewhat selective in what they tell about their opinions since obviously not all things are equally popular. Out and out lying is a no no though.
...
The GOP race is more the big two (Giuliani, Thompson) then big three (Romney). Romney is trying to set himself up to try to win values voters which I think is a mistake, also Romneys negatives are higher then his positives (Mormonism?). The newspapers have tried to sink Fred Thompson as of late and failed, although John McCain (with still little $$$) has rebounded a bit with his strong support on the war (compared to the rest of the field's ambivalent statements). The rest of the field (Duncan Hunter, Huckabee) isn't getting much traction. Gilmore dropped out, he might run for Governor (again) of Virginia or Senate.
*ADDENDUM II
Quote:
He compared meeting with the leaders of those countries now with JFK, and Reagan meeting with the Soviet leaders.
Now it is worth noting that JFK and Reagan met the Soviets in different circumstances. The United States in JFK's time for example recognized Iran's* government, which we do not do now (although we do appear to be attending some kind of conference or something with them shortly although not one on one, and I am not hopeful at all in regards to that). JFK's meeting with Nikita Khrushchev went rather badly and also led the famous liberal icon (and noted anti-communist) to racket up defense spending to indicate clearly to Khrushchev that he didn't "win" any debates (indeed the defense increases resulted in Khrushchev backing off from his plan off proceeding with a confrontation with the US over Berlin). It is hard to imagine the comparatively hawkish actions from Obama. Indeed far from "bearing any burden...(for)...liberty" Obama stated recently (doubtlessly in reference to a withdrawal from Iraq) that the US need not use it's military might against genocide. Incidentally, I agree with him at least partially, although I don't think the US military should take action that opens the door to it either.
*JFK, of course, never met face to face with Ho Chi Minh while he was warring with the US ally South Vietnam.
The Reagan case has no parallel what so ever. Reagan was constantly criticized for not meeting with pre-Gorbachev Soviet on Soviet terms by the Democrats at the time. It was not until the rise of a reformist government in Moscow partially due Reagan's hard-line approach that meetings without preconditions were even possible, and diplomatic progress was made.
24 Jul 2007, 6:55 am
Cynanide wrote:
Meeting with Castro? Good, maybe we'll finally get rid of the stupid trade embargo.
A meeting with Castro was portrayed in the satiric novel by Christopher Buckley, The White House Mess (intended to be of a theoretical Dukakis administration). The fictional President agrees to meet at a neutral location, and after giving a speech first praising the end of the new relationship, Castro launches a long broadside attacking the "imperialist" Americans as is his standard. Since Castro is almost dead it's unlikely it could go exactly that way, but meeting unconditionally with American's ideological opponents is unlikely to produce positive results. A meeting with Castro along with concessions would be seen as a American strategic defeat, and an boost for Cuba's dictatorial rulers.
24 Jul 2007, 7:25 am
Barack Obama is now backing off his foreign policy statement, or having foreign policy advisory say he meant something else.
Quote:
Charleston, S.C. — Sen. Barack Obama’s closest political adviser, David Axelrod, wants you to know that Obama did not say what he appeared to say at Monday night’s Democratic debate here in Charleston. A questioner, speaking via debate sponsor YouTube, asked whether, in the spirit of “bold leadership,” the candidates would “meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration…with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries.” Obama had a ready answer.
“I would,” he said without hesitation. “And the reason is that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding principle of this administration — is ridiculous. Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to the Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.”
...
But after the debate, speaking to reporters in the spin room, Axelrod claimed Obama didn’t mean any such meetings would actually take place.
“He said that he would be willing to talk,” Axelrod explained. “And what he meant was, as a government, he’d be willing and eager to initiate those kinds of talks, just as during the Cold War there were low-level discussions and mid-level discussions between us and the Soviet Union and so on. So he was not promising summits with all of those leaders.”
Axelrod said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who took sharp issue with Obama on the question, was “trying to make a distinction without a difference.” [Clinton was critical of the comments]
“I would,” he said without hesitation. “And the reason is that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding principle of this administration — is ridiculous. Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to the Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.”
...
But after the debate, speaking to reporters in the spin room, Axelrod claimed Obama didn’t mean any such meetings would actually take place.
“He said that he would be willing to talk,” Axelrod explained. “And what he meant was, as a government, he’d be willing and eager to initiate those kinds of talks, just as during the Cold War there were low-level discussions and mid-level discussions between us and the Soviet Union and so on. So he was not promising summits with all of those leaders.”
Axelrod said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who took sharp issue with Obama on the question, was “trying to make a distinction without a difference.” [Clinton was critical of the comments]
(National Review)
I think while this kind of comment might very well strengthen Obama on the far-left (as well as in certain internationalist quarters), it will hurt him among more centrist Democrats, and possibly among some which may well be supportive but worried about nominating a candidate who is either too far left of center or politically unskilled to win the general. While, as a rule Senator Obama has seemed most adapt in the political game, his viewpoints would be the farthest left of the center of any candidate in American history (although McGovern was farther left in the context of the times). It is also worth noting that that his easy victory for the office of Senator was largely the product of the recent sharp decline of the conservative intellectual Alan Keyes (who really didn't belong in that election anyway), and the Democratic advantage in Illinois rather primarily to Obama's political skills.
Obama's primary strength has always been in his "everyman," populist approach, which is something that has worked to varying degrees in the past to candidates across the spectrum from John McCain to Bill Clinton back to Franklin Roosevelt, to Robert La Foullette, and William Jennings Bryan to Andrew Jackson. However, to be truly successful in such a strategy one work hard to shy away from confrontation on unpopular issues. Now, Bill Clinton, of course, held some unpopular positions (for example his position against the ban on partial-birth abortion) however he was careful to couch his position in language that was designed to reassure moderates rather then stark language to offend them.
24 Jul 2007, 8:11 am
some of the Youtube questions were really stupid. Who cares who their favorite teacher was?
_________________
I'm Alex Plank, the founder of Wrong Planet. Follow me (Alex Plank) on Blue Sky: https://bsky.app/profile/alexplank.bsky.social
24 Jul 2007, 7:50 pm
Quote:
Yes, Reagan talked with the Soviets; he eventually had several summit meetings with Mikhail Gorbachev. But: not right away. Not in his first year. In fact, throughout his entire first term, Reagan had no summit meetings, none, with either Leonid Brezhnev or, after he died, Yuri Andropov or, after he died, Konstantin Chernenko. The time wasn't right. And the Democrats during the 1984 election attacked him for it; for example, Walter Mondale at the 1984 Democratic National Convention said: "But the truth is that between us, we have the capacity to destroy the planet. Every president since the bomb went off understood that and talked with the Soviets and negotiated arms control. Why has this administration failed? Why haven't they tried? Why can't they understand the cry of Americans and human beings for sense and sanity in control of these God awful weapons? Why, why?
Why can't we meet in summit conferences with the Soviet Union at least once a year?"
Senator Obama was wrong on the facts in invoking President Reagan in this way.
Why can't we meet in summit conferences with the Soviet Union at least once a year?"
Senator Obama was wrong on the facts in invoking President Reagan in this way.
(source)
Senator Obama's a smart guy and it's probable he was aware of the circumstances of Reagan's meeting with the Soviets (or I certainly hope he would). I don't condemn him using the reference to Reagan since Reagan is increasingly a focus a praise not only of conservatives (but from a very different interpretation of history), but of liberals as well and Reagan is popular with the type of blue collar Democrats that voted for Clinton twice.
To avoid sounding too openly partisan although I am obviously so, there are certain Republicans who I think are probably incapable of winning. Mitt Romney, who I like and who has a shot at the nomination increasingly looks little likely to win. Actually now to think of it I think it's hard to imagine most of the "second tier" putting up much an effort in current political environment. Simply for policy viewpoints Sam Brownback (whose focus on abortion and values questions would doom him), Tom Tancredo (who comes across too hardheaded on the immigration issue even for a general conservative population), and Ron Paul who doesn't work for a variety of reasons (nobody wins elections by arguing points repeatedly emphasizing strict adherence to the constitution, he also comes off for a very weak government which Americans to be honest aren't, and weak on national defense which Americans shy against even during unpopular wars).
alex wrote:
some of the Youtube questions were really stupid. Who cares who their favorite teacher was?
I, personally, prefer debates with some kind of moderator(s)*. It's not perfect, and might be skewed, but it's usually better then when they take questions from the audience. The candidates are never brave enough to just say, "That question is not relevant to this debate."]
*ADDENDUM: Of course there were moderators. I meant moderators asking their own questions. Rather curiously, as it turned out there were "deeper" questions available but CNN chose not to use them.
Last edited by jimservo on 25 Jul 2007, 10:05 am, edited 2 times in total.
